|
Post by calithena on Mar 10, 2012 11:08:39 GMT -6
1. Should I go see it?
2. If I do, 3d or no 3d?
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Mar 10, 2012 11:48:31 GMT -6
1. Yes. It's beautiful and entertaining and while not a 'great' film is definitely a cut above most anything else I have seen recently. And I think that it captures the spirit of the source material even if it departs in ways (though as always your mileage may vary). More complete thoughts here: odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=mars&action=display&thread=69752. I would say no 3-D. One of the things that I think is brilliant about this movie is that it avoids a lot of problems with modern action movies. 3-D is, in my opinion, a serious problem with modern action movies (and varies widely in quality). *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 10, 2012 12:34:09 GMT -6
I'll pretty much mirror darkling's analysis. I loved the movie and am hoping to get some work done so that I can go see it again. I also prefer 2D to 3D and specifically chose to watch it in 2D the first time. (I had to hunt around -- some of our local theatres only have it in 3D.)
One theatre has it in 2D IMAX. I might give that a shot for viewing #2.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 10, 2012 12:35:34 GMT -6
Oh, and I posted a short review of the movie in the WARRIORS OF MARS section of the boards. I'll probably move this thread there eventually as well.
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Mar 10, 2012 13:15:21 GMT -6
Thanks guys. I'm going Monday!
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Mar 10, 2012 13:24:38 GMT -6
Be careful, it is a shameless Avatar-ripoff.
(My programme for Monday is The Artist, which took this long to get to my town.)
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Mar 10, 2012 13:47:47 GMT -6
Be careful, it is a shameless Avatar-ripoff. (My programme for Monday is The Artist, which took this long to get to my town.) This...you...wrong way...you see time flows FORward...grah!!! *dies*
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 10, 2012 16:01:38 GMT -6
Yeah, since Under the Moons of Mars (the original title of the story as published in pulp mags) was published in 1912, it's hard to think of it as a rip-off of some other story. Well, I guess Jules Verne and a few others came before Burroughs, but usually it's folks stealing from ERB and not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Mar 10, 2012 16:28:18 GMT -6
Elliot Wilen wins again. d**n you, Elliot!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2012 19:09:06 GMT -6
I just saw it (in tridee) and really liked it.
And ... yes. I've read the Burroughs pulps, too.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Mar 10, 2012 22:22:46 GMT -6
I saw it (the 3D version) yesterday afternoon also. Maybe I'll be the dissenter around here... but I didn't think it was much of a movie, really. It wasn't awfully bad or anything, and it is worth a look just to see what they've done with the material. But it wasn't great cinema. I don't really see the parallels with Avatar, and I will be amazed if John Carter achieves even a tenth part of the success of that film. At the session I saw, just a couple of days after its release, there were maybe 20 people in a theater that could seat hundreds. That aside, some of the scenery was beautiful, and the Tharks, I thought, were very nicely done. Some of the CGI was fantastic, but some less so. The flyers in particular, I thought, were awkward and a bit too unconvincing. The major fight scenes were too "G rated" for me... considering the source material, I would have preferred something closer to the grit of the recent 300 movie. But none of those niggles really matter. What mattered to me was that the film suffered from much the same malady (in my opinion) as did the recent Conan film; they tried to cover too much ground without giving enough depth to any part of it. E.g., we had a few scenes of John Carter the soldier. A few of John Carter the prospector. Later, a few more of John Carter the wealthy gentleman. Also a few of John Carter the devastated husband. And of course, the principle role was John Carter of Mars. Unfortunately, I didn't get the impression that all this was woven masterfully together, but rather that various pieces should have been re-arranged or cut altogether. The movie *could* so easily have been shorter and better. Perhaps my expectations were too high? Perhaps the preceding short for "Clash of the Titans" just looked too good? I don't know. Whatever the reason, I ended up feeling underwhelmed with the John Carter movie. I wish it were otherwise, but that's how it went for me
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 11, 2012 5:42:40 GMT -6
Oh, I don't think that you are "the dissenter" on this. At least one other has checked in on my movie review thread who didn't like the film for one reason or another. In general I think that it's hard to translate books into movies. A book tends to hint at some details like landscape that have to be very elaborate in film. A film has to cover in pictures some details like thoughts and feelings that are often very elaborate in books. Plus, not everyone has the same mental image of what things should look like. For Tolkien that wasn't quite as big a deal since some great artists have captured images of Middle-earth, and in general they are quite similar in major detals. For Barsoom that's more problematic because the art styles vary so much. Look at the covers of various editions of the books and note that in some Tharks look just like tall green guys with extra arms while in others they look more menacing and more like orcs. There isn't the degree of sameness that can be seen in Middle-earth artwork. Did the movie look like what I imagined? Not really. The early still shots and theatre trailers really bothered me. The first ten or so minutes really bothered me. After I got "into" the movie, however, I found it to be fantastic. It mixed in elements from later in the series, but I think it worked well to make a consistent plot. It changed a few things like Dejah Thoris' character, but I think the update works well in this era. I went to a 4:30 in the afternoon show on Friday and it was really full. It surprised me how many fans there were, particularly so early in the day when many people are still getting off work. I haven't seen numbers for the movie this weekend, but I'm hopeful. Anyway, just one guy's opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2012 8:25:02 GMT -6
I've seen the trailers and the movie looks decent enough. If the JCM books are nearly 100 years old, the writing style may not lend themselves to film well without adjustment. Movies today are fast and furious and that's what audiences look to find. I'm going to go see it today (I hope). Elliot Wilen wins again. d**n you, Elliot! I don't get this? In-joke?
|
|
|
Post by warrioroffrobozz on Mar 11, 2012 9:39:50 GMT -6
So, it's better than the new Conan movie then?
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Mar 11, 2012 12:33:57 GMT -6
I've seen the trailers and the movie looks decent enough. If the JCM books are nearly 100 years old, the writing style may not lend themselves to film well without adjustment. Movies today are fast and furious and that's what audiences look to find. I'm going to go see it today (I hope). The books are pretty fast and furious too. I mean, being 100 years old puts you in 1912. They knew how to make action stories in 1912 that kick the ass of most modern fare. Also speaking of fast, another thing I want to say in the movie's favor is that I can't recall having to sit through the boring and gratuitous slo-mo that plagues most current action movies. John Carter jumps, fights, and punches in a consistently quick and deadly fashion. It's refreshing. So, it's better than the new Conan movie then? Gods yes. As a fan of the source material of both, John Carter is much more (though not perfectly) faithful and a significantly better made film. I was entertained for a few hours by the new Conan but then it's forgotten. I will be buying JC on DVD and watching it again.
|
|
|
Post by warrioroffrobozz on Mar 11, 2012 13:21:19 GMT -6
That's good, now we just have to wait for the terrible tie-in video game.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 11, 2012 13:46:36 GMT -6
So, it's better than the new Conan movie then? Gods yes. As a fan of the source material of both, John Carter is much more (though not perfectly) faithful and a significantly better made film. I was entertained for a few hours by the new Conan but then it's forgotten. I will be buying JC on DVD and watching it again. Agreed. I barely made it through the DVD of the new Conan movie once and have no desire to see it again, but I can't wait for JC to come out in DVD. (Hopefully with special features.)
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Mar 11, 2012 15:58:35 GMT -6
I barely made it through the DVD of the new Conan movie once and have no desire to see it again, but I can't wait for JC to come out in DVD. (Hopefully with special features.) Huh. I thought the Conan movie was OK - not OK in the sense of having much to do with REH's work but an all right S&S movie. I could see watching it again in a year or two. What was so offensive about it to you - leave aside lack of adherence to REH cuz that is given?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 11, 2012 16:30:30 GMT -6
I won't say that it's "offensive" but I found the chick with the punk/goth hair to be really strange and somehow I just never really got into the movie. The main actor was decent enough as Conan, but he didn't seem to have a real spark.
Robert E Howard is one of my favorite authors and I'd like a Conan movie to really be awesome and not just so-so.
I'll probably try it again one of these days, but for some reason when I tried to watch it the first time it just didn't have the right feel to it somehow.
|
|
|
Post by garham on Mar 12, 2012 7:18:01 GMT -6
I thought it was awesome. Was it exactly like the books? No. Did it come close to capturing their spirit? I thought so. Is it likely we'll ever see a better movie based on sword-and-planet fiction during our lifetimes? I highly doubt it, unless this one does well enough that they make the sequels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2012 8:38:55 GMT -6
Be careful, it is a shameless Avatar-ripoff. (My programme for Monday is The Artist, which took this long to get to my town.) That is funny since since ERB published "A Princess of Mars" the first John Carter of Mars book in 1912 100 years ago and Avatar was a shameless ripoff of ERB not the other way around.
|
|
busman
Level 6 Magician
Playing OD&D, once again. Since 2008!
Posts: 448
|
Post by busman on Mar 12, 2012 13:06:13 GMT -6
Be careful, it is a shameless Avatar-ripoff. (My programme for Monday is The Artist, which took this long to get to my town.) That is funny since since ERB published "A Princess of Mars" the first John Carter of Mars book in 1912 100 years ago and Avatar was a shameless ripoff of ERB not the other way around. It's arguable that John Carter the movie is a ripoff of Avatar. Sure the story and themes are ERB, but the content of the movie, the use of shots, etc. are modern, not from 1912; and has been well discussed they took many liberties with the original materials.
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Mar 12, 2012 13:23:09 GMT -6
Elliot Wilen claims another victim. Good!
|
|
|
Post by vladtolenkov on Mar 12, 2012 14:11:22 GMT -6
Unfortunately, ERB was not exactly mining unpaved territory either: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Gullivar_Jones:_His_VacationEdwin Arnold beats ERB as his was published in 1905. There's a long and complicated history to this genre although Burrough's work remains the quintessential version in fiction.
|
|
|
Post by calithena on Mar 12, 2012 15:13:16 GMT -6
I give this film a thumbs up - quite enjoyed it. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Mar 12, 2012 22:09:48 GMT -6
I thought it was awesome. Was it exactly like the books? No. Did it come close to capturing their spirit? I thought so. Is it likely we'll ever see a better movie based on sword-and-planet fiction during our lifetimes? I highly doubt it, unless this one does well enough that they make the sequels. Yep, it is not enthusiasm I have for the Conan movies (any of them), but the realization that Hollywood is not going to come close to realizing a movie that honors the vision of any author, pulp or otherwise. The independent Cthulhu movies that James Maliszewski of Grognardia has posted about sound like the only movie treatments of a pulp author's work which have much integrity, and even those are compromised.
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Mar 13, 2012 23:31:08 GMT -6
I saw the film a 2nd time and thought more kindly of it. Its not bad compared to the flotsam that usually flows out of Hollywood.
Maybe there will be some new art, some cool toys to use as props or minis in games, maybe an rpg.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 14, 2012 19:19:53 GMT -6
I saw it a 2nd time today as well, and enjoyed it as much or more than the first time.
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Mar 17, 2012 18:33:24 GMT -6
I just saw it today, and for better or worse I enjoyed it. Purists will bw bugged by a plethora of things- they can sod off! Some of the things they got right are very technical, but nonetheless very ERB
Ship weaponry looks like 6lber rapid fire guns from around 1916. Well what else would ERB base it on?
Radium rifles and pistols were pretty spot on as far as I was concerned.
Steering of the ships was very Victorian/ Steam punk and looked very good. It reminded me of a cross between Dune ornithopters and Sky Galleons of Mars vessels with trimmed panels and adjustable solar panels. It works, and it seems plausible.
O.k. Maybe Dejah looks different to me too, but I wouldn't kick that one out of my bed!
Woola, good, old Woola.... Amazing how something can be as big as a six legged pony, and still act like a bulldog!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Mar 18, 2012 8:03:41 GMT -6
O.k. Maybe Dejah looks different to me too, but I wouldn't kick that one out of my bed! I had honestly never heard of Lynn Collins before she was cast as Dejah Thoris. I guess she was in one of the X-Men movies (didn't see it) and True Blood (only recently saw it; she died early on) and maybe some other things, but I had never heard of her. I think she did a good job with the character even if she wasn't "imcomparible". Okay, so Dejah got a bit of an update so that she was a more active modern woman than a passive "oh, save me" princess, but what we wound up with was a character who had to be both active/adventurous in some scenes and courtly/regal in others. I thought she did a pretty good job of that. If not her, who would be cast in the role? If you take a currently popular "flavor of the month" like Megan Fox no one would take the character seriously. If you take a more classic actress like Angelena Jolie, she has more miles on her than Dejah should have and it might be hard to pin her down for sequels (which I hope they make). No matter who you pick someone will love the choice and someone else will hate it. I think they did well.
|
|